Talk:Telstra

Telstra and OTC

Telstra a descendant of a Telecom-OTC merger? That doesnt square with my memory. As I recall it, when Optus was first set up on Oz, it was part of a complicated plan to do something about the massive debts of Aussat. (Which was itself a grandiose and impractical plan to put up satellites, for which there was little commercial demand, but which governments of both political flavours supported. )

As I remember it, the government of the day (Hawke? Fraser?) couldn't sell Aussat as, despite substantial investment, it had a negative nett value, so they merged it with the highly profitable OTC and sold the combination to Optus.

But I'm only going on memory.

No, I'm pretty sure Telstra came about from Telecom-OTC. Optus was Aussat plus a newly issued telecommunications licence to a group of shareholders including AMP and Mayne Nickless...

Telecom was incorporated in 1991 and merged with OTC shortly after in 1992. Around this time Aussat was sold to optus. In 1993 Telecom began trading as Telstra overseas, but continued to trade as Telecom within australia until 1995.

Telstra Sale: Background and Chronology

To confirm that: I'm pretty sure Telecom Australia ditched their old logo for the current Telstra one (with Telecom instead of Telstra for text) then switched to the Telstra name around 1995. Not to long ago Telstra tech vans still had the Telecom Australia lettering on them. This image and this phonecardconfirm the existance of the Telstra-style Telecom Australia logo around 1994. If no one corrects the references or raises a point to the contrary, I will rewrite the appropriate sections soon. --Mcbridematt 08:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

For a time, the merged Telecom and OTC was technically known as the Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (AOTC). The Commonwealth Act [1] and Regulations [2] that legislated the merger should be all the confirmation you need. Aussat was sold as-is to the Optus Communications consortium - the sweetener to the deal was that it came with a telecommunications licence and a period of duopoly prior to greater competition. --Rob.au 11:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Telstra Shafting was invented not to long ago to ramp up sales in the Telco. It involves a large tub of vaso, and works well when a Telstra employee has a hole in there pants for quicker shafting access.Shafter123 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

What is it about this company? Almost all of the Nigerian scam emails I get come from Telstra addresses. And when I email their abuse box, they never respond. RickK 04:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

They suck. All Australians apologise on their behalf. - Mark 06:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, they're a combination of the worst aspects of old government bureauracy and gouging private monopoly? They are a friggin' disaster area. At least they're now disconnecting zombie customer boxes. --Robert Merkel 06:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a new law that all ISP have to follow, if that law wasn't made Telstra would still be billing zombie boxes at $150/GB up and down. 220.233.48.200 12:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Broadband

Surely there needs to be a section in here on the disastrous history of broadband in Australia and Telstra's role in it? From the early days of Telstra cable 200meg limits to dodgy ADSL networks to unfair monopoly practices in dealing with other ISP's. Perhaps a Whirlpool veteran can revise.

Telstra happens to give the best premium Broadband service in Australia, there is no disputing that point. the fact that your asking someone else to make a section on this is appaling! (even after your pathetic remarks)

Oh dear - where do I start with this one!

1. Telstra compete in both the wholesale and retail markets, as such, many other ISPs are both their competitors and customers. This is a position Telstra doesn't want to give up Dec 2001 despite industry recommendations (Feb 2002, Apr 2002, Dec 2002, Dec 2004, Jun 2005, Aug 2005). As a result, ISPs suffer when trying to construct their own network (Apr 2005) or sign up customers (Oct 2002, May 2003, May 2003, Jun 2003, Sep 2003), due to Telstra Wholesale giving their own retail division preferential treatment.
2. Telstra's plans are poor value in comparison to others, whether it be ADSL pricing in general (Broadband Choice), policy (eg. charging users for both uploads and downloads) or their new wireless service (Aug 2005)
3. November/December 2001: After an ACCC-enforced drop in Telstra's wholesale pricing, Netspace and iiNet are some of the first major ISPs to offer ADSL at competitive rates ([3] [4] [5])
4. Telstra has consistently has problems with making usage details available to users, Aug 2001 Dec 2001, Dec 2001, Jan 2002 Feb 2002 and as a result, several users have been hit with large bills Dec 2001, Dec 2001, Nov 2003
5. Many households on ADSL enabled exchanges can not get ADSL, due to Telstra taking cheaper shortcuts (RIMs and pair gain systems) in the past. (Oct 2002, Nov 2002, May 2003) This occurred before their problems with ADSL were well known, and in Oct 2002 Telstra said they would stop using pair gain. However, it was still installing pair gain systems in Apr 2004.
6. Telstra's usage metering faults have also caused errors in the billing system May 2002, May 2002, Nov 2002
7. Dodgy advertising (Jul 2005, Jun 2003)
8. Numerous email problems (Feb 2002, May 2002, Aug 2002) - and losing customers websites several times - sometimes permanently (Apr 2002, Aug 2002, Sep 2003)
9. Increasing prices and changing contracts - the biggest of these was when Telstra implements a 3Gb cap on all users (who had previously signed up for unlimited) (Jun 2001) - others include Jan 2002, Jun 2002, Aug 2002.
10. Not peering with smaller ISPs or peering points - only with other large providers (Optus, MCI and AAPT - the "Gang of Four") - artificially keeping traffic costs high Feb 2003
11. Telstra introduced a $29.95 plan in Feb 2004 [6], at a retail cost cheaper than what Telstra was selling to other ISPs wholesale rate. ([7] [8]) This was in order to attract new users, sign them up to an extremely low data limit (200-300Mb/month), and have them either pay excess usage costs or upgrade to the more expensive plans. Telstra was later forced to pay back $6.5m to competiting ISPs (Feb 2005: [9], [10])
12. Deliberate overcharging - Feb 2004
13. Another example of Telstra's hypocrisy - Apr 2004
14. Phone service - Line rental increases May 2004
15. Telstra have come under fire from the ACCC for not offering competitive line sharing service (LSS) (Jun 2004) - ironically, they complained when they were on the other end of the stick when they wanted to compete with Telecom NZ in New Zealand (May 2004).
16. Telstra limits ADSL speeds on their DSLAMs to a maximum of 1.5Mbit (ADSL is capable of up to 8Mbit), in order to prevent competition with their cable service. Telstra did not announce plans to deploy ADSL2 (Mar 2005, Apr 2005) under other ISPs started installing their own DSLAMs (Feb 2005: [11], [12]).
17. For a long time, they were one of the few ISPs to not "shape" users by default (as opposed to charge them excess usage fees) when they went over their limit. They introduced shaping on one plan - which they called "unlimited" (it was actually a 10Gb plan) Bigpond was one of a number of ISPs in trouble for this (Jul 2005, Aug 2005)

A note - yes, these are all from Whirlpool - traditional news sites tend to remove articles more than a few weeks old. Plenty of the Whirlpool articles include comments and quotes/references to other news sources. Enjoy and feel free to integrate this into the main article in a NPOV manner! -- Chuq 01:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Whirlpool arguments hardly ever take into account all facts in determining the value of Telstra's offerings. Most Whirlpoolers are little more than fanboys for another ISP, and are not familiar with Telstra's offerings. A lot even work for competitors. I challenge your "poor value" argument with Bigpond's install offers available right now.--58.162.22.241 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What facts? They offer less data than most, they cost more than most, they have longer contract lengths, they charge for uploads (which almost no other ISPs do), and they charge excessive fees when a user exceeds their limit (except on one plan, see the ADSL Unlimited section below). Free installs and free modems mean nothing when you are locked into a 24 month contract. -- Chuq 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Telstra does not "charge" for uploads, and as for quoting Whirlpool (netter known in the industry as Whingepool) it has a major bias against Telstra. :: They do actually "charge" for uploads. If you are on a plan with a megabyte cap (not "unlimited" or "liberty") you will be charged if you upload data once you are past your limit.

They count the uploads along side the downloads to determine how much of a set limit has been used...in other words, its the same damn thing as charging for uploads.

Whirlpool is known as "whingepool" in the industry? That tells us a lot about what you think of your customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.60.1 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• • perhaps it should be rewritten by one of the many pr consultants hired by telstra to spam the internet with telstra's spin. they could put a little picture of an angel with a cute little halo over her head. brad 3/07/07

ADSL Unlimited

ADSL Unlimited (Shaped to 64k after reaching 10GB):

Bigpond advertises these plans as Unlimited because once you reach the 10GB and gets shaped, you can contiune to download/upload at no extra charge where as those other plans (200-500MB plans) incur a 15c per MB extra (which is $150 per GB). So there is nothing wrong with it. Unlimited as in free unlimited downloads/uploads, not speed. Winxptwker 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not unlimited broadband. It is 10Gb of broadband and the remainder at 56k speeds. Every single Netspace, Internode, iiNet and WestNet plan use shaping, but these plans are not advertised as unlimited, because that would be deceptive and dishonest. -- Chuq 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no clue what "unlimited" in this case I mean. UNLIMITED DATA. With those low plans, it's 15c per MB over, but on the 10GB, free data after over 10GB. That's what they define it as unlimited data. Winxptwker 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what you mean and what Telstra mean - I'm saying that it is deceptive marketing. Internode has a $29.95 plan that offers 500Mb and is then shaped. Would it be right to say they offer unlimited downloads for $29.95? Of course not. People compare a 12Gb $60 plan from another ISP, with an "unlimited" $70 plan from Telstra. Without knowing all the facts, and all other things being equal, they would immediately think the Telstra one is better value, when it isn't because of their dishonest advertising. -- Chuq 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it dishonest when at ALL times Bigpond uses the term "Unlimited*" to describe their shaped ADSL plans? --58.162.22.241 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) :: This has changed now from unlimited to "liberty".

Read what I said above. Bigpond can't just change meanings of words to suit themselves. With the '*', that makes it legal, it doesn't stop it from being dishonest. -- Chuq 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you call a restaurant "All you can eat" if they only allowed you to refill your plate once every hour after the first hour? I think not. Once you get throttled, it works out to 4GB per day - hardly 'unlimited'. It would take you seven hours to hit the 10GB limit if you were downloading continuously at maximum speed on a 1500/256 plan, and then for the entire rest of the month you only get 14 times that. "All you can eat" indeed.

PaulWay 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrible cables

Foxtel is distributed over Telstra's rapidly decaying cable lines. These lines are in terrible condition, those in Adelaide are currently tipped to only last another three years.

This doesn't seem right. How could all of the thousands of kilometers of cable lines be 'rapidly decaying' and 'in terrible condition'? This sounds like it's come from a frustrated Telstra customer in Adelaide who's having problems with cable internet. --Scott Nash 10:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• All metals oxidise, some just last better than others. Copper cables do deteriorate over time even in the best of circumstances. If you're considering cables that are hanging from poles, swaying around in the wind, getting frozen and heated every day for decades, then they will wear out. Even if the copper itself doesn't snap, it could wear the insulation away and contact metal, it could fray and cause internal signal reflections, joints can wear and corrode, or any one of half a dozen other gradual disintegrations. And the overhead lines are relatively easy to replace - underground cables may be impossible to replace for any number of reasons. It's estimated that in places like New York the cost of getting cables from the exchange to the customer can be in the millions of dollars per kilometer. Even if the cable isn't actually broken, it may be degraded so much that anything above voice can't get through clearly. So this is a big issue! PaulWay 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Argument for privatisation

Could someone outline the arguments for Telstra's privatisation for me? Thanks

OK, by reducing government control Telstra will be able to reduce services in regional areas. Who cares if someone living twenty minutes from a capital city has third-world internet access? I know, the executives will get another undeserved payrise; it's not as if the savings would be passed on to consumers or the people who are actually entitled to a greater share of profits. Feldmarschall 15:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I love wikipedia. Such balanced information.

Another argument for privatisation is quite simple, how can you have a competitive efficient market when the Government is both the regulator and the owner of the biggest operator in that market. If you truly think that Government's have to own a phone company to ensure it does the right thing, why are mobile phones so popular. That market is dominated by non-goverment owned entities. And the customers seem happy given they are moving away from fixed line phones in droves

This is just my personal opinion, not Wikipedia content. Quite rightly, this should not be made part of the article. I'm actually a shareholder too, so you can consider this the official opinion of one of the company's owners. I may be a capitalist pig, but at least I have some social conscience, unlike the Board and the Commonwealth Government. Feldmarschall 17:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd still be interested in what the coalition's viewpoint is, if possible.

Thus far the justifications really boil down to "it will be more efficient/profitable through virtue of being a private company". However I don't see how that will actually play out seeing as a whole swathe of Telstra regulations will be seemingly be permanently legislated. Kewpid 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Being an economically right-wing party, they might justify it under minimal government in the economy. It is true that the sale will raise a lot of capital for the government, but with the money the government makes from share dividends, they'll soon be running at a loss. Feldmarschall 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• The argument that the government should maintain ownership of Telstra because of the share dividends would only make sense if Telstra was the highest yielding lowest risk investment available. Clearly it is not. So on the "share dividend argument" the Government should sell its shares in Telstra and buy shares in Coca-Cola, BHP and JB Hi-Fi - would that make sense to you?

The Telstra sale will retire Commonwealth debt, and after the sale Australia and Singpore will be the only two countries with zero federal debt. The company is being sold, not given away.

In the USA governments does not own telecoms companies. Telstra is given subsides for the universal service obligations, and the USOs have nothing to do with who owns Telstra. Gtoomey 08:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to expand on WHY companies in competition to Telstra often complain to the ACCC about access to Telstra's network? The issue is that Telstra was not always privatised and as such the majority of its infrustructure was paid for by tax payers to provide a service in the tax payers best interest. Often to parts of the country where it is non-profitable to provide these services. To then privatise the company, its goal immediatly changes to make profits for share holders. It's only fair that other competing for-profit organisations gain access to the infrustructure to promote competition and a fairer deal to australian tax payers. ~ ML

Recent Update Regarding Telstra Mobile

Telstra mobile happens to be this biggest and of course the best mobile provider in the nation of Australia, it happens to be the only network in australia to cover outer regional areas with its technology called CDMA, other areas such as meto areas are covered by the digital signal called GSM\GPRS.

Is this sort of comment appropriate for Wikipedia? --bacco007 07:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not NPOV. The facts could be worked into the article though, if they are not already there.--Commander Keane 17:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like pro-Telstra POV-pusher User:60.224.28.225 edited the words that Bacco007 quoted. The original text read "Quote: Unfortunately, these networks fail to provide to many metropolitan areas due to poor management and disregard for the problems of customers. As such, Optus is widely considered to be superior to Telstra in this regard." -- Chuq 23:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Optus, Vodafone & Hutchison are generally considered far better networks in metropolitan areas. POV? Nope, go check out the coverage maps at gsmworld.com - it's bleedingly obvious!

I agree, this page reads like a Telstra advertisement. The recent ACCC business with anti-competitive network wholesaling to other Telco’s should help balance this out.

The outsourcing of labour to foreign workers and the continual resistance to pro-competitive legislation (in spite of the fact that their networks were largely laid out with taxpayer money) shows that Telstra is not in the least concerned with the needs of Australian consumers.

Limiting ADSL speeds to 1.5 Mb and charging a premium price is a joke too! That’s crawling by international standards. Thank goodness other providers are putting in their own 24 Mb infrastructure.

I’d like to see some more on how backward this company truly is!

Broadband Disaster? You are joking..

As one who worked for Telstra and other companies, let me tell you that Telstra did not decide to limit ADSL speed. It was a function of the cable characteristics and the equipment already at the exchanges. Cables might be from the 1940's and were never designed to carry the service anyway. Telstra may be slow in upgrading general speeds, but that does not make it a disaster! 202.12.144.21 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Compared to most other 1st and 2nd world countries, yeah, it is a disaister JayKeaton 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They didn't pay my father his wage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serenacw (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then how come other companies easily provide fast speeds on the copper lines? James Pinnell 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My daddy says that Telstra were gonna put in a 4 billion dollar broadband infrastructure for us all, to make us all very happy and bring us up to scratch with the rest of the world. But Telstra held the government to ransom, saying "we will only do this if you sign this paper, which says that we can be as anti-competitive as we like with these proposed new lines". But our good government said "What, are you on crack? We'll never sign this, get outta my face". So Telstra, to spite the Australians and our goverment said "well screw you, we are Telstra, we OWN Australias IT and T system and we will NEVER bring your lines up to scratch, not EVER". So Telstra instead spent 1 billion dollars on this Next G business, and now Telstra offer a range of services that cost 75 dollars an hour to browse the net and check our emails on our phones, laptops and desktop computers... Thanks Telstra JayKeaton 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing after 6 or 7 years limited to 1500k that they miraculously were able to put 8000k speeds on after ADSL2+ was becoming widespread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macktheknifeau (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Anti-Telstra POV

I know a lot of Australians have an axe to grind with Telstra, but this article is ridiculous! Its so full of weasel words and exceptions that you can tell its been thoroughly doctored by people with an axe to grind such as the privatisation section and bits about wireless broadband. I'm certainly not suggesting it should be a puff piece, but a bit of fairness? Don't take my word for it; compare this article to one for Optus. The writing and POV should be consistent. I'll have a crack at fixing it some time, but this being Wikipedia I don't expect it to stay that way for long...

In addition, the section on international expansion is out of date, it does not include the SouFun acquisition or the merger of Hong Kong CSL with another carrier.. Amargosa 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the POV warning be removed. I've looked at both of these sections and they don't seem bias to me, it could have been changed since the flag was added. Lod 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it Amargosa 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Has the logo really changed as of this month. The website still prominently displays the 'old' logo, I have only seen the 'new' logo used in regard to the Next G network - but I feel I am not up with the latest so am hesitent to revert. orizon 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote to their Brand team and asked. The new logo with a full "t" is the new one and will slowly be migrated to. I'm guessing that redesigning all Telstra's web presence will take time.Amargosa 03:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's very thorough, thank you. orizon 09:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ten things you didn't know about Telstra

I don't think this part should be in the article. It is clearly corporate Public Relations. Many of the numbers could be interpreted differently. For instance the fact that their revenues are growing quicker than the GDP means that Australians have to pay a higher percentage of their wages. The same goes for how many people they support. The government is also supporting alot of people, but that doesn't mean we should call for a bigger government. Effective and efficient is what a company should be. Raindeer 20:00 (CET), 15 November 2006

I'd second that: reading the Telstra page clearly gives the indication that this is doctored Corporate PR. Comparing this page with Optus and Internode Systems shows that it's clearly not written by neutral outsiders. I'd also add that the IP address 58.162.22.241, who has posted frequently on this talk page speaking out on behalf of Telstra, is from an IP address inside Telstra's corporate network (telstra.net). PaulWay 10:18am (AEDST) 18th November 2006.

For your information Raindeer and Paul, the information was not placed there by any Corporate PR officer. It was placed by me as a factual information section on the performance of the company, and was based, as the article itself says, on a speech by Phil Burgess given to a Victorian Business community in Australia. I was informed by Wikipedia that the article or information must be previously published and factual. I researched the article, which was written primarily for a journalism paper. The inclusion was of my own choice, not the company. Management and Public Relations never requested, ordered or asked for it. Greg Jones. Husky05 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. The factual information in it is represented in an opinionated way. Like the point I earlier point out, there is nothing good about the amount of money Telstra is reaping from the Australian Public. Large percentage points of GDP sounds cool, but its bad. Raindeer 20:00 (CET), 15 November 2006

Raindeer you have removed the body of the article. Please advise under what part of the rules or regulations for Wikipedia you are operating under, because the contact I have had with Wikipedia does not seem to concur with your view. i.e. How is it opinionated? Could you assist by explaining your point of view, thanks. Have also referred to another wikipedia editor for clarification of this matter. Husky05 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shyam for explaining in detail your opinion. Happy with that :) Greg.202.12.144.21 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Greg, don't know who Shyam is or if he explained the matter to you. The Telstra statement is in my eyes corporate spin. It is representing facts in such a way that they look positive on the organisation doing the spinning. These facts however do not carry that positive connotation by themselves. It is a glass half full/empty problem. So Telstra saying they represent X of GDP and this grows quicker than GDP can be the result of business accumen of Telstra or of leveraging its monopoly power and generating monopoly rents from the network. To show how this works with taxes look at this statement: The government has had a good year this year. Its income as measured of GDP is 60% higher compared to the amount it received last year relative to GDP compare this to the same fact: GDP rose by x. The government raised taxes by an even higher amount, thereby taking more cents for every dollar from peoples pay checks. Same fact, different spin. With regards to wikipedia rules... not too good with them, but I do seem to have read that it should be unbiased. Raindeer 1435 CET, 8 december 2006

Raindeer, thanks for the reply. No point discussing further. You removed it. PS: you forgot to remove the title mate. Husky05 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Next G

From what I understand, Next G is not a 3G network device - why does it link to 3G?

Shouldn't there be a separate Next G article? Mattabat 08:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Only if there should be a seperate article for Sensis, Bigpond & Mobile Loop. Sensis redirects to the Telstra article.Amargosa 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Next G IS a 3G network, works under the 850 MHz band, and in time will reach speeds of 14.4 Mbps.

Actually, I think you'll find its actually been classified as a HSDPA.

This is an example of how useless Wikipedia is as a reliable source of info. Next G is actually a generic term, widely used in the telecommunications and IT industry as an abbreviation for "next generation". Yet a search of "next g" from the main page leads directly to this article.

Just because a big corporation thinks they can appropriate a generic term as their own doesn't mean we have to go along with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.60.1 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Next G is actually a registered trademark of Telstra Corporation Limited (Note that it is "Next G" and not "NextG" or any other variation). Yes, the phrase "Next G" is obviously an abbreviation of "next generation" (Much like the term 3G) but I have never seen it used to refer to anything other than the actual Telstra brand itself. Can you provide a source for your allegation that the phrase "Next G" is "widely used in the telecommunications and IT industry"? cheese-cube 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Customer Service

The poor quality level of Telstra and Bigpond's customer service is widely acknowledged among the Australian public. In 2006 Telstra won a "Worst Tech Company" Award from iTnews (http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=42919). Unfortunately, as with customers of the British teleco BT, the Australian public does not have a sufficient number of same-cost competitors to choose from, which gives Telstra no incentive to imrove its service and also results in a begrudging acceptance among the public of the standards offered. You gets what you pays for, as the saying goes.

In its role as an ISP, some recent research has shown Telstra's customer service to be less satisfying than Westnet, Chariot, and Optus (http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2007/625/), but more satysfying than, say, Dodo.

Anecdotal evidence from journalists' blogs in Australia tell of a reactionary press office that rarely sends out press releases and fails to return journalists' phone calls. Classic organisational behaviour for a media and PR department on the defensive.

Neutrality

What's the issue people have with the section about Telstra's privisation?James Pinnell 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

April tidyup

I had a crack at removing some of the bias against Telstra from the article, and moved a lot of the comments on privatisation into past tense (since its a done deal).

Also established two new headings, "Fibre To The Node" and "Advocacy" to cover Telstra' activities in these areas. At present they are not well referenced. I will get around to it eventually unless someone beats me to it. Amargosa 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the privatisation is not a done deal. Telstra is still partly owned by the Government. The legislation approving the full sale has gone through parliament, but that is a long way from the sale actually being completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.60.1 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being blunt but you are dead wrong there: the privatisation of Telstra is a done deal. Have a look at the About Telstra page on the Telstra website for more info. Btw when you make a post on a talk page make sure that you sign it, which can be done by typing four tildes (~~~~). cheese-cube 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

Has telstra been editing this page? I am, of course, referring to the "Advocacy" section added by 155.143.225.149 on 11:13, 4 April 2007. He also changed massive amounts of text that changed the nature of the information on this page much more favourable in Telstras direction. His very first post was deleting some fan fluff from Boston Legal and two other edits about an Australian Footballer, adding that he is a drug addict. That is merely three edits before his Telstra edit extravaganza, and after the Telstra edits he wasn't seen from again. This "advocacy" part seems really suss, you hear a lot of criticism about Telstra in the media, from independant regulators and from people in general, so it seems absolutely insane the the only peice of "reception" here is in favor of Telstras aim for monopoly. There is so much backlash and information about Telstra wanting more freedom and more control, so the only thing I can think of about this user is that he must work for Telstra JayKeaton 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that it could possibly be the user above me before he got a username. It also seems that he has been editing far more about Telstra than I first thought, again in a Telstra bias. Mentioning Telstras campaign on regulation is one thing, but deleting and failing to mention why Telstra need to campaign, the reasons companies don't want Telstra to have control, is omitted. I believe he may just be a new user and is simply editing in his own bias without realizing he is doing anything wrong, but even still we need to keep an eye on this Telstra page and any page covering any of Telstras history or services JayKeaton 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I edited the article to remove some of the blatantly anti-Telstra bias and try to make it neutral POV, rather than a page for Whirlpool readers to vent their spleens. Your own comments higher up this Talk page show where your bias lies. As for the Advocacy business, it exists (nowwearetalking is a classic example) and the very fact that it exists and affects people means its Wikipedia-worthy. Try to work within the Wikipedia spirit; if you can expand on the section then do so. By all means, write about the public backlash. Lastly, I removed a lot of material that referred to T3 in present-tense, as T3 is now completed and historical. Lastly, the edits made from IP address WERE me, that was never a secret. I just forgot to log in. Amargosa 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the POV warning at the top of the page...I hate telstra as much as the next guy, but this is rediculous:

"Testra currently has developed a serious additude problem and in recent years has antagonised the government, the ACCC and large parts of the Australian community, to the point that now nearly everyone is offside with them. Testra has been ruthless in attacking the ACCC, government policy and anyone else that gets in it's way. The long term aim of this policy is to intimidate policy makers so than Telstra can set prices and control competion and charge whatever it likes for its services. Indeed already in the present regulated environment, when compared to almost every other country in the world (including Afganistan)Testra is exhorbitantly expensive and provides and appalling customer service (with arrogance thrown in for free), and these two trends will only accelerate if Tesltra were to get its way."

Just a tad bais wouldn't you say? BrotherEstapol 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • actually that sounds fairly accurate brad 3/07/07

Flag icons

There are nice flag icons on the Telstra page, the Vodafone page, etc. What about the Optus page? how about we put them on there also? please do so. Tri400 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Refer to WP:FLAGCRUFT and comments on your talk page. Discuss it on Talk:Optus if you want to push this further. -- Rob.au 03:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (Restoring my comments deleted by Tri400 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)) -- Rob.au 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Telstra Bigpond.svg

Image:Telstra Bigpond.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New Logo

Where's the new logo? — mattrobs 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two differences between the logo at the top of the article and the pre-2006 logo. Firstly, the "brand block" is no longer used, ie the logo exists on its own without having to be in a cube. Secondly, the T now has a stem from the top into the circle. The new logo had two variants, the flat coloured one (shown in article) and the "Shiny" one which was retired a month or so ago for whatever reason. Consequently the comment in the article about the logo change being cancelled is a bit incorrect, I will change it. Amargosa 11:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)